Southend Controlled Airspace

[John Price]

Complete chaos in the South East looms.

[tnowak]

I wonder why there was, according to the CAA letter, a high level of non-compliance regarding the requirements of the RMZ?

Tony Nowak

[James Chan]

It's disappointing that a high numbers of pilots could not be bothered to check the NOTAMs and/or pick up the radio to enter the RMZ.

This same group of pilots would probably continue to infringe as they've done before once it becomes CAS.

LAMP implementation needs to get going again so that we can revisit this piece of airspace and more in future.

[Brian Hope]

Whilst I would not condone pilots who fail to check Notam or deliberately fail to comply with the RMZ (and I really do not believe this to have been more than a very small number, if any), I think the fact that the RMZ was not shown on the Southern England chart was the key factor here. CAA could have reprinted the charts, or they could have provided an overlay to modify the current chart but they chose to do neither. I really do not believe the RMZ was given a fair crack of the whip, and that worries me with regard to Farnborough where an RMZ might be a reasonable compromise. No James, let's not lay the blame for this fiasco solely on the shoulders of GA, more could and should have been done to disseminate the information.

[James Chan]

Perhaps, but if this group of pilots did not bother to check their NOTAMs, I further doubt they would be aware that a more recent chart would have been available for purchase, that is assuming one was published outside the standard print cycle, and then actually be bothered to go and buy it.

It was incredibly clear to me that an RMZ existed via NOTAM and free graphical tools like Skydemonlight made it even more so.

That said I do believe the RMZ could have been given another chance based on the lack of airproxes and MORs since the RMZ was established, and the fact that changing it to CAS will do little to stop an infringer.

[John Price]

Could have been any number of our European colleagues and not home based GA.

I don't know if they have RMZ anywhere else in the EU.

[Chris Martyr]

I hope that our friends who fly from airfields that are more adjacent to Southend don't find this offensive , but I believe that given the circumstances they were placed in , the CAA haven't done a bad job in mediating between the different party's interests. It's a crowded corner of S.E. England and as they say in the document ,'doing nothing was not an option'.
The Class G/RMZ always was a bit flaky in my opinion. It was far too large and the fact that there were infringements is as much the fault of the CAA as it was anyone else's. If I may draw readers attention to a recent article on navigation in CAA's excellent Clued-Up publication , it referred to ones chart as being the definitive piece of primary nav. equipment and that tablet devices should not be relied upon as a substitute. So the Fed's weren't really practising what they preach there . Reading between the lines of the document ,the CAA almost acknowledge the RMZ as an unsatisfactory constituent in the solution to all this .
Anyway, now that the relevant areas have been positively outlined and the latest current chart will be out soon, maybe we can start building with bricks and not sticks [excuse the disgusting management yuck-speak there] .
As for James' notion about "This group of pilots" , who does he think "they" are ? a vigilante group of off duty hunt saboteurs ? Fathers for Airspace Justice ?? Maybe it was that awful bunch of Jodel's Angels, The St Marys Marsh Marauders ???
We have to remember that not all pilots spend their 'non-cockpit time' glued to Forums and although it can't be condoned , infringing the Class G/RMZ that was, was not totally their fault .

[John Price]

Hi Chris,

The issues are a bit lengthy but in essence since 34 is being decommissioned at Rochester any North bound traffic will have about 1.5 miles or 45 seconds from leaving the ATZ to change frequency, make contact, get a clearance, prior to the zone.

If this does not prove successful they will end up in a small section of airspace with nowhere to go as the next departure will be close behind.

Likewise inbounds will have no time to set up themselves up prior to entering the ATZ when leaving the SND CAS.n

Then when you add all non transit traffic coming round the SW corner of the SND zone. All of a sudden this bit of airspace will become very busy!

There is the issue of the now funnel created between SND and Stansted CAS and the loss of the 3 training areas, Hanningfied Reservoir, St Marys Marsh and the Isle of Sheppy. Where does all this traffic go ?

But Hey Ho, SND doesn't give a stuff as long as we are outside its area of responsibility. Any airmiss or collision will be someone else's fault, and any increase in cost because you will have to train else where is your problem.

As of today there still has not been any LoA between Rochester and SND nor has there been any formal contact.

Draw your own conclusions.

John.

[Chris Martyr]

I certainly have drawn my own conclusions John and you are absolutely correct !

Departing from Rochester on Rwy 02 with the intention of heading N.W. could be a little fraught if Southend's ATC staff don't wish to co-operate. Mind you, looking at their departures/arrivals schedule , they're not exactly going to be rushed off their feet and with consideration to the other bottlenecks they've created ,they almost have a moral duty to safely accommodate traffic wishing to transition over their field.
I still stand by what I say about the CAA's handling of the situation though. I think they were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place and whatever they concluded was going to leave disgruntlement somewhere. At least we know where that big old glass wall is now.
Let's just hope that guys electing to take the other route , IE skirting around the S.W. of the area [the aviation equivalent of Hyde Park Corner] have got their eyes out of the cockpit and not buried in their tablet devices, Dynons and Garmin 1000s !

[John Brady]

I know there is a view that pilots did not bother to check notams or use Aware/Skydemon or just decided to ignore the RMZ.

If you use skydemon but the Misc or Other Airspace box is not checked in the setup menu (as mine was not because that is mostly unimportant clutter) the RMZ does not appear at all. I think this reflects the fact that the RMZ is relatively new and it is not classified with the likes of CAS and ATZs when it should be.

True, the RMZ does appear in the notams but on Skydemon it appears after a lot of large notams about Ukraine (even if you are just VFR in the UK) and most people including me skip quickly over those and the RMZ is easily missed.

Turn to the CAA policy letter on RMZs and you will find it says that RMZs are to be included on charts and included in the AIP. There was a mid-issue chart planned for Autumn 2014 but it was cancelled as not required (see AIS website vfr charts). There was no AIC and no AIP Supplement.

We really need to understand why this RMZ did not work because the RMZ and TMZ are useful as a step between Class G and D. And the CAA decision letter says that the majority of GA requirements will be met in the Class D - but we are not told what Southend Airport said our requirements are! It is not unreasonable that we should know what access we should expect to get to this Class D airspace so we can utilise it fully and if we cannot then we can do something about it. So there are some things to be done.

John

[John Price]

Hi John,

Are you up at Duxford on the 28th March ?

John.

[John Brady]

Indeed yes, Tim Hardy and I are on the boards after lunch presenting the FAS VFR programme which is now part of the DfT GA Policy.

John

[SteveHutt]

Info released by the CAA......
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2111/Southend%20RMZ%20PIR.pdf

An intriguing "PIR" document. Contains no words by the CAA, just data tables and CAT Operator and Airport comments.

[Flying John]

Interesting that Stobarts say;-

"SEN ATC work to a very high standard, which is important, Class D would allow then to concentrate more on commercial traffic and less on GA traffic, this in itself is a compelling safety case."

There needs to be a mindset change that re-inforces the fact that whether the airspace user is making a profit from a flight and incurring expense, or a General Aviation pilot funding his flight from his own pocket, they have no greater right to use the airspace.

What is it that makes the operators of Southend believe that their profits, or use of their fuel and time outweighs anyone elses time, money or use of the airspace.

It is a shared resource and the safety case for ALL users of the air should not be predicated on one user benefiting financially from the use of the air.

If Southend want to make money by using the airspace then the costs should rightly be borne by them, but at the same time not disadvantage other non profit making users of the air by refusing entry, delaying or making a GA flight more difficult.

Lets hope they dont, but if they do make access to this class D, difficult then we should rightly expect the process for modifying their behaviour will be robust and adequate.

John